Watch what she does, not what she says

Watch what she does, not what she says

When I was in college, I was trying to make myself into a man who values equality in all spheres of his life, as women kept saying that they wanted men who agreed with their political views. In fact women would reject my advances if I did not mouth the correct platitudes. In a left-leaning college, if I did not overtly agree that men and women should be equal in the bedroom, that when a woman says “No” that never means “Nooo—not right now”, if I did not agree that men are no different mentally, physiologically, or sexually from women, that men should be no more or less the providers of economic resources or child care to the family, and if I did not agree to an additional whole litany of feminist baggage, dating was not something I could look forward to. In other words, I felt I could not take charge and act as a kind and controlling presence in a relationship, since I had to verbally promise that I was not in any way like that.

When I complained about this to a lifelong friend he gave me very sage advice:

“Ignore what they (women) say. Watch what they do.” He said that some women both say they want an egalitarian relationship and act as though they do. He told me not to go out with those women because there would be no compatibility.

But he also told me that no matter how much many women think that they want full equality in a relationship, almost none of them actually do. He said that if I want to go out with a more traditional woman, watch how a woman behaves—how she responds to my traditional ethical take-charge male behavior—regardless of her radical feminist rhetoric. Don’t argue with her when she describes how evil men are in our “patriarchal culture,” but nevertheless do what I as a caring take-charge non-egalitarian-inclined man would do—open the door for her, pay the restaurant bill, and make sure she is safe when you walk her home through the dark streets.

He explained that women have an immensely powerful need to be seen to be equal to their man and right in any disagreement with their man and in their social context. If the current fashion at college is for women to be feminists (or socialists or whatever) that will usually be their stated position. Women with such views wish to be celebrated as politically correct and conform their views appropriately.

Men, on the other hand, have historically been more rebellious and independent thinking. Whereas women want to be seen to be right, and are more likely to want to fit in with their feminist peers, and may be more likely to conform in general, men tend to want to be effective (hopefully, in achieving what is right!).

In relationships, it is often the woman who points out that there is a sign posted that says that a footbridge is closed for repairs and should therefore not be crossed, even if convenient for the family to cross it. It is often the man who is more daring, notices that the bridge is structurally sound, and it will benefit the family to cross if they just don't step on the freshly painted areas—the only repairs being made. Such a man may agree with his wife that the sign says they shouldn't cross, but he then quietly demonstrates what he thinks best by crossing the bridge, and his family follows his confident lead.

If the family were to be stopped by the police, the man would not have been effective in meeting the family's needs, and his decision to cross would have been the wrong one. But if the bridge crossing is helpful, he is admired by his wife for his minor daring and the family shares in the convenience.

My friend's point is really that as men we need to allow women to be seen to be “right” in what they say, in general not argue that much—but judge their true intent by what they do in response to traditional (ethical) male behavior. Then we must strive to make decisions that are effective in achieving what is right for the relationship and ultimately the family—which actually gives them what they really want, their stated wishes for an egalitarian feminist-inspired relationship notwithstanding.

Eventually the language of radical feminism disappears or diminishes as the relationship progresses, because the woman is in fact mistaken in thinking that she wants an egalitarian relationship in which man and woman provide precisely the same input financially and in every other way. What she says she wants, and what she acts as though she wants, are two different things, and we men need to be sensitive to that, while not hurting her pride by pointing out the discrepancy.

My friend wisely said that a man needs to be insightful enough and brave enough to understand her desires, though they may be much deeper than what is reflected in her overt language. I agree.

On a personal note, I am married to the finest taken-in-hand woman in the world. Yes, she made me breakfast in bed this very morning!

Although she was never a feminist, she used be very opposed to marriage and even living in a couple relationship, and she used to say that men should not be in charge of a family, etc. etc.

And I used to not have the courage to see beyond the politically correct utterances of women.

David

Taken In Hand Tour start | next


Have you seen the following articles?
The joy of the master-queen dynamic
Egalitarian dating vs accepting gifts graciously
Who cares what others think?
Making it explicit versus keeping it implicit
No helpless hysterical heroines here
Actions speak louder than words
Enjoying consensual sexual aggression
Three female film characters I admire
Who Stole Feminism? by Christina Hoff Sommers: a book review
Equality isn’t all it’s cracked up to be

Comments

From David's wife

I am David's wife, and I agree with him that if you are a man looking for a relationship of this type, you would do well not to take too seriously what a woman says, if her actions are consistent with wanting a man like you rather than an egalitarian man who wants his wife to be equal in every way.

I have to admit that I still somewhat disagree with my husband's apparent view that there are fundamental differences between men and women, but we don't argue about this, we laugh, and as I said to my husband when we first met, I would much rather be with a man like my husband than with a man who wants everything to be equal. My husband treats me so well, and is so HOT—he's the BEST!

David's Wife

Not interested

Tolerating women who can't think beyond what they have been told that they want still gets you one who can't see any fundamental differences between men and women, and I am a Taken In Hand man who is no longer willing to deal with any amount of "radical feminist rhetoric".

Feminists who try to dictate how to interpret their behaviour "correctly" seem unwilling to accept that men get to choose what they think of it, and some of us have decided that such females are fundamentally defective and not worth the trouble.

One difference between men and women is that what women find attractive in men isn't what men find attractive in women. And while feminine women can also be extremely resilient and wonderfully Taken In Hand, no amount of whining will ever make something attractive out of females who imitate masculine behaviours or roles, or act as competitors instead of helpmates.

Also, it is important to reco

Also, it is important to recognize that a woman's self-understanding changes as she matures. When I was in my 20s, I thought I wanted an equal relationship, yet I was always "testing" my dates for firmness by getting into a stupid argument on the 2nd or 3rd date. I responded well to men who calmly stood up to me. It was only in my 40s that I began to realize--or admit to myself--that I needed and wanted a strong man. Help us out, guys! We need you with all your magnificent strength and authority! :-)

Re: Not Interested

A woman's (or a man's) soul and character, not to mention her attractiveness, go way beyond the words she mouths. Embittered men sometimes blame feminism or other cultural distractions for their lack of success with real women.

People are imperfect and their ideas change rapidly. Character, however, is much more enduring. There is a very large selection of wonderful women with taken-in-hand proclivities, just waiting for single men to don their own confidence and character and take them in hand regardless of any shrill platitudes they may make to the contrary.

My wife is thoroughly intellectual, thoroughly beautiful, thoroughly feminine and completely obedient. She is the sweetest woman alive and serves me in every way that I desire. If that would not be enough for you then what you want is not of this world.

Obedience

You speak wonderfully of your wife, David. How though does a highly intellectual woman serve a man with complete obedience? Seriously, how does she get her own needs met? I'd like to be more this way but don't understand how obedience fits in today's world.

Obedience

My job and my desire is to provide for her wants, needs, and desires. And she deserves that and more. If our preferences are mutually contradictory, hers take priority over mine unless I think that enacting her preferences will hurt her, and then I will not allow her to act on them.

We both love making the other smile. She makes me smile quite a lot. If you could see her in action, you would know why I love her so much. Since we both want the other to be happy, there is usually not much conflict. Her intelligence, education, and brilliance add to the richness of our lives. She has excellent ideas.

And I certainly take into account her ideas in my decision making. I utilize my best and imperfect judgement in determining what we will do, even if I disagree with my wife. Sometimes my wife wants to please me in a way that I think will require too much sacrifice on her part. I will not allow that.

In exchange for placing her needs above my own, I demand (and am blessed with) her obedience in return.

But perhaps what you might need to know is that when we first knew each other, before we got married, my wife initially found it difficult to trust me and surrender, and she was not obedient, though she did want to be. I knew that she needed to be conquered and brought to full obedience. I did not expect her to obey from the get go, and I did not complain (much—it did sometimes get annoying in those early days before we were married) that she was such a handful, I simply handled her. She thrived on being forced to obey. I believe this is true of most Taken In Hand women. What men need to know is that such women want to be brought to full obedience, and though it may take months or even a year or more, you will get there: she will become willingly obedient when trust has been built up.

I believe it's unrealistic to expect full obedience without the full commitment of marriage. Unmarried women need to protect themselves until they have a husband to do so for them. This is a natural feminine need, not a blameworthy fault, and my wife was no different. It took some time for her to relax and allow herself to be fully controlled by me. But when we got married, my wife's trust and surrender grew rapidly and within a year or less, probably much less, she had become fully obedient.

Obedience

I am nothing like as perfect as David's wife, and I don't serve my husband with complete obedience, but I do try harder than I used to. And since I always had a vague, half-supressed desire to be in a relationship where I would be required to be obedient, I find that I am more at ease with my husband since we made this adjustment.

I have found that as a result of the regime change, my husband is actually more thoughtful and considerate of my needs than he used to be, and more likely to listen to me with sympathy when I talk to him about things that are bothering me. And I am more likely to talk to him nowadays than just keep things bottled up like I used to. if something is wrong and I don't talk about it, he will usually notice anyway, and make me tell him.

Although things are by no means perfect, they are a lot better than they used to be, and I have found that more of my needs are getting met now than ever before.

Louise

How I get my needs met

A poster wrote:

"You speak wonderfully of your wife, David. How though does a highly intellectual woman serve a man with complete obedience? Seriously, how does she get her own needs met? I'd like to be more this way but don't understand how obedience fits in today's world."

One of my needs is to be controlled by my husband, so obedience itself meets a need of mine. If you don't have that need, obedience will not be right for you. It only fits in today's world to the extent that it's right for you. You also need a husband that is a good guy that wants to make you happy, not a guy who's focussed only on himself and his own desires.

David's Wife

take charge man?

I don’t know where you live but I don’t see the young people the way you describe them. Since I just finished my vacation in Budapest I will put it to you like this: I don’t like your goulash.

There are certainly women who have this ‘need’ and I am one of them, however the need flourishes and express itself in so many venues, modes, the circuitry to this need can be quite complicated so I believe that this advice greatly reduces your chances of finding a mate rather than enhances them.

I would have assumed that you would not want to be so easily defined, so why define your prospects so arbitrarily?

You would have got a rude awakening with me since I have always enjoyed men who opened doors and I often thought of them as kind and I often thought of them as doormen but truth be told I am just plain lazy and welcome anyone volunteering to do anything for me and I am not shy about paying lip service to it since it is preferable to work.

I have always been loath to spend my own money being a bit of a miser so I felt considerable chagrin if I had to pay the dating bill or any bill for that matter and to this day I prefer putting checks in than out. Since I am very casual as long as you were well mannered and did not belch profusely I would have let you say whatever as long as you kept it brief. Of course if I thought I was going to get mind blowing sex I would let you talk forever and give you lengthy license but the reward would have to be extensive and when I was young keeping me sexually satisfied to the level that insured docility was almost an enormous task and only fitting for a one with a sex drive as high as mine. Of course you are very savvy and would have immediately detected that I was a man eater in disguise even though I had the ‘need’ in excess of most women and of course you would have avoided me, whereas I simply would have ignored you; being a hedonist, I was rarely paused unless pleased but I am living proof that your theory is incorrect.

I never met a woman who said they wanted equality in the bedroom without definition so I don’t know where you found these women that stated this on the first date. I am sure you tell truth and I have heard this from men that these women exist. I once witnessed a kind man holding a door only to receive a scathing insult from a college girl who he did the favor for. It was unbelievable and I wanted to hit her, I found it so loathsome and moronic.

I see women like this as pawns in the game. They have bought the company line and are entangled in the gallimaufry and brick-a-brack of propaganda and bogies that were necessary for women to unleash on the unsuspecting college ingénue minions so they could achieve their own personal advancement and profit. Walking through life and being the gnarly women that I am I made the acquaintance and heard stories from the feminists who made their mark by using the poor pawns who were left holding that bag and got the booby prize.

They were angry women these feminists. They were tired of men postulating that they were the decision makers and fit to decide architecture by perusal, they were angry at the stereotype (an some stereotypes are true for the few) that women were followers and in fact they were angry about the very things that you have stated— so they leveraged their power and caused a shift and now we have laws in the USA that greatly favor women in many ways. The pendulum has shifted and it is not fair and it is not just, but many women find satisfaction in it because they're still angry about the historical injustices and they don’t like the clichés that where so popular. Historically it was always easy to blame the women and even the feminists have blamed the women, so you can see the reason for anger.

So I ask you who is in charge?

Sex differences

>... if I did not agree that men are no different
> mentally, physiologically, or sexually from women ...
> When I complained about this to a lifelong friend

I infer from your statements that you think that women are substantially different from men.

Of course I agree that men and women are different. They have different genetic makeup. And they grow up under different conditions, partially because social expectations concerning men and women are different, and partially because having a vagina and uterus rather than penis and testicles makes their experience of their bodies quite different.

But different men or different women also have different genetic makeup; in fact any two individuals who are not identical twins are genetically different. And there are no two individuals, including identical twins, who have exactly the same life experience. Our own life experience tells us just how immensely different people of the same sex can be.

Probably you did not mean that men and women, or any individuals for that matter, are different in this rather obvious sense. Probably you meant that in certain sense men are rather alike while being quite different from women who also are rather alike in that sense, and that this difference is the reason why in the intimate relationships with women men should be in charge. Is my perception of what did you mean correct? Further I'll suppose that it is.

> He said that some women both say they want an
> egalitarian relationship and act as though they do. He
> told me not to go out with those women because there
> would be no compatibility.

As far as I understand if you call your friend's advice "very sage" it means that you agree with what he said. But this means that not all women are inclined to accept masculine authority. In my opinion this contradicts your supposition that men are different from women in a way that enables (and in fact invites) them to assume the lead, unless of course you adhere to the view that a man should be the leader no matter what his woman thinks about it.

I agree that women who say they want an egalitarian relationship and act as though they do are rare. But they do exist. You may be incompatible with them, some men may even find them unattractive and unfeminine, but they are still there, so any view that aspires to say something true about men and women in general has to take them into account. Your view seems to ignore them despite the fact that you agree with your friend who said that such women exist.

So if you have a relationship where both of you agree that you have to be the leader, why do you need to make sweeping statements about men and women in general, especially if you know that such statements are not universally true? Do you need some justification, some excuse? Is not consent of your woman enough?

It is surprisingly common that men who have this consent don't feel it is enough, so they contrive different theories that postulate that men and women are fundamentally different. Of course, it is a common human need to explain things they see, especially things they find to be strange or paradoxical. But you just may ask your woman why she wants what she wants. It's possible that if you are sensitive, insightful and persistent enough, you'll be able to get the truthful answer and understand it. I think that men and women are not so different that they can't understand motives of each other. And I suspect that this truthful answer, whatever it will be, will surprise you both.

I think that if you perceive some attitudes and behaviours of you woman (and indeed, of many women) as strange and paradoxical from your point of view, it is rather bad idea to postulate the existence of fundamental differences between men and women and consider the matter settled. Such theories are just a fig leaf used to conceal and suppress your astonishment. But being astonished is a good thing, it makes you think and ask questions. And if you think and ask questions you'll understand your woman better.

I can't speak for David but...

The above poster writes:

"Probably you did not mean that men and women, or any individuals for that matter, are different in this rather obvious sense. Probably you meant that in certain sense men are rather alike while being quite different from women who also are rather alike in that sense, and that this difference is the reason why in the intimate relationships with women men should be in charge. Is my perception of what did you mean correct"

Reading David's post it seems clear he meant to make a general statement but not a universal one about all women and all men. Further, from the fact that he wrote that there would not be compatibility between himself and a woman that genuinely wants an equal relationship, it seems like he was not saying that in every relationship the man should be in charge.

The poster writes:

"So if you have a relationship where both of you agree that you have to be the leader, why do you need to make sweeping statements about men and women in general, especially if you know that such statements are not universally true? Do you need some justification, some excuse? Is not consent of your woman enough?"

If you read David's article you will see that its point is to give other men wanting a Taken In Hand relationship some much needed advice that might help them find a woman: he was advising Taken In Hand men that the pool of women who might fit their needs and desires may be larger than they may think it is if they have been passing over all women who say they want an equal relationship, etc. That was what David was saying IMO, and the above poster is missing the point entirely.

Yes

The word feminism is often misused. For most of us it simply means women having equal rights under the law something they often do not have on this planet even in 2008, rights to vote, own property, become surgeons or presidents and a reasonable measure of fairness at home.

I think David said watch their behaviour. That's the key. How they behave, not necessarily what they say. Women like me react in a certain way to dominant men, always. It's how we're made. Some other women aren't made like that and if you're a dominant man you're wasting your time with those ones.

"She thrived on being forced to obey. I believe this is true of most Taken In Hand women. What men need to know is that such women want to be brought to full obedience, and though it may take months or even a year or more, you will get there: she will become willingly obedient when trust has been built up."

Mmmm, yes and you are right trust needs to be built up. Occasionally dominant men are surprised I won't trust immediately. Why should I? I say do you really want someone as stupid as to trust someone she hardly knows? Aren't you lucky that I don't.

Feminism and Gender Differences

I am as saddened as the next man when hearing feminist rhetoric about the evil of men. However, I take exception to what looks like a dismissal of feminist concerns or portraying men to be more “ethical” or more right or more capable just because of their gender.

We do indeed live in a patriarchal culture and I see no point in arguing that fact. Male values, hierarchical and process-oriented approaches are revered in business and society. Women, bless them, so flexible and adaptable, have managed to not only succeed in our male-oriented culture, but even excel in it. They are a force to be reckoned with, to be respected if not feared, and we men have a choice to make: make allies of them or enemies. Personally, I would much rather have a woman at my side than to face her in battle.

[For the rest of this post, see How to understand and appreciate a woman.—The Editor]

Women Warriors

Dreamwalker, I like the way you think. I just cannot decide if you have a Native American background or a Celtic one. Mine is Celt. And you are right to fear facing a woman in a battle. She would win every time.

Libby

Re: Women Warriors

Libby, I stem from Vikings, the ancient conquerors of the North.

Drakkar longships and snake-chiseled rune stones my heritage, I shy away from battle for the walk of the berserk leaves only ashes in its wake.

Women and men are petrifying at war, but when juxtaposed in love and contrasted in lust, they are magnificent. After all, we belong together, not apart.

Dreamwalker

Ah, Valkyrie...

Viking. I should have thought of that one. Yes, berserking had its place in war but does not belong in a relationship. As you have stated so beautifully, men and women were meant to complement each other, not battle one another.

Libby

There's a time and a place - and the right person

I see your point and enjoyed reading your insight about how women tend to go with the masses, and that their actions are better ways to judge on than their words are, but I believe there is another/additional reason why men have a hard time seeing through the feminist attitudes of today's women.

If the women out there are anything like me, they know that being a feminist does not mean femi-nazi. I believe that women should be treated equally in public and at work, but should be second to her husband in the home.

Every man aside from the one I choose to give myself to, should view me as his equal (ideally). So if I have not given myself to a man yet, then I will bite his head off if he tries to assume anything other than that he is my equal. Only when I begin to take interest in a man would I let this guard down and test his strength/authority by way of my actions (rather than words) to see if he is worthy.

So I wouldn't say that women just want to talk-the-talk of the masses when what they really want is to be controlled by a man... I would say that women really do have these political opinions, and indeed wish they could earn 1 dollar for every man that earns 1 dollar, and indeed wish their opinions and thoughts were taken as seriously as a man's is in this world, but... indeed, want to put themselves second to one special person whom they love and trust, to guide and lead them. We want to fight all day out in the world, and we want to come home and surrender to one.... It would be hard to meet us during the day! I wouldn't let a man pay for lunch until I liked him!

If we acted generally submissive, we'd simply be taken advantage of. If I told a guy right off the bat what I truly wanted out of a relationship—that I wanted to have dinner ready when he got home, massage his feet every night, get on my knees to serve his needs anytime he wanted, and be controlled by him... well, any man would want a servant! But would they want ME...? Same goes for work, obviously, if I were submissive at work I'd get walked all over, never get promoted, and end up with grunt work and coffee serving. I'm sorry... but I just won't bring any man a coffee other than my husband!

G